Re: Mersenne: Poaching -- Discouragement thereof
On Sunday 26 January 2003 19:55, Mary K. Conner wrote: > > [ big snip - lots of _very_ sensible ideas!!! ] > > Primenet, and Primenet should preferentially give work over 64 bits to SSE2 > clients, and perhaps direct others to factor only up to 64 bits unless > there aren't enough SSE2 clients to handle the over 64 bit work (or if the > owner of a machine asks for over 64 bit work). Umm. Last time I checked, it seemed to be a waste of an SSE2 system to be running trial factoring ... the LL testing performance is so good that they really should be doing that. If you calculate (P90 cpu years/week factoring)/(P90 cpu years/week LL testing) then I'll think you'll find PII/66 MHz FSB & PPGA Celeron systems are the "best" trial factoring systems. Regards Brian Beesley _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Poaching and related issues...
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >> Early GIMPS and the other project (Slowinski/Cray) had >> no common agreement or method for avoiding duplication. > > Umm, I've not been in this project _that_ long, but at > least a year or two before Primenet got integrated into > the main client. At least at that time, all communication > was done by e-mailing George requests for ranges (a list > of free ranges was available on the GIMPS website), > George solving conflicts if two people requested the same > range. (All results were also handed back to George via > e-mail, of course.) Are you talking even older than that? > :-) What I was referring to was not overlap of work within GIMPS, or duplication of effort by two different GIMPS participants. I was referring to there being no agreement, at that time, to avoid duplication between (a) George Woltman and (b) the team of David Slowinski and Paul Gage (who were testing Mersennes, independently of George, on Cray computers). George Woltman just _barely_ missed out on becoming a Mersenne prime discoverer back then. (But he was not a poachee bcause there existed no reservation system between Slowinski & Gage, and him. It was just happenstance that Slowinski and Gage completed L-L testing M1257787 while George was in the midst of L-L testing that very same number.) Richard Woods _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 03:03:53PM -0800, spike66 wrote: > spike > > (Please, fellow math lovers, do let us get > things in the proper perspective here. GIMPS > is just for fun.) Isn't that the point. Poaching spoils the fun for the poachee. Regards Daran G. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:01:26PM +, Gordon Spence wrote: > 1. Personally, I don't see any harm in "poaching" per se, I have had it > happen to me. That's life and the way it goes. As I stated earlier, when > information is discovered humanity as a whole gains. Period. Look at the > big picture. I don't quite see what 'humanity as a whole gains' when I return a negative result, or even a new factor, to the server. The biggest picture in which what we do has any significance at all, is the GIMPS project as a whole. And poaching harms the project by a. Making it less fun, and b. Possibly by putting off participants. [...] > 4. Get it into perspective. The number of times this actually happens is > miniscule. Out of the millions we have checked what are the "poached" > items? Dozens, a few hundred?? It's a thorn in the flesh. Objectively, the effect of poaching is insignificant, but its irritation value is out of proportion - witness the way the issues comes up time and time again in this list. > 5. It has correctly been pointed out that life doesn't end if a milestone > slips. Well guess what? That is a double-edged sword - life doesn't end if > an exponent gets poached either. But a participants contribution might. > 6. Now go back and read the license.txt file again, and this time actually > take the time to read and understand it. It specifically excludes liability > in the event of poaching. It does *NOT* say the you mustn't do it. The only > rules that you agree to be bound by are those in deciding how the > cash-prize is split up. Isn't that what we're discussing? Changes to the rules and proceedures. > Gordon Daran _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Communication between GIMPS Forum and Mersenne mailing list
I wrote: > The point I wish to make is that this sort of thing will continue to > happen as long as GIMPS has significant discussions in independent > media without extensive (and probably not practical) > cross-communication. This is not necessarily all negative. Along with the needless duplication of effort also comes new ideas that did not rise, or might not have arisen, in the separate discussion. But IMO we still need to consider whether the separate discussions are best for GIMPS in the long run. Richard Woods _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
I know that this might be earth shattering news for you, but there is no such thing as "poaching". Neither GIMPS or Primenet have any license to these numbers, nor are they the only entities testing large numbers for primality. If my sister reads from her math book a method of testing large primes, knows nothing of Primenet or GIMPS, tests the numbers on her home computer, and finds a large prime, she is gonna publish it. She might choose to send any results to GIMPS, or not. She might double check it using GIMPS provided software, or not. But for sure nobody has any reason to prevent her from doing any of this. There simply is no real problem here that is begging for solution. Anyone is entitled to test any number they want for primality. GIMPS isn't the prime number police, nor would they have any right to be. Paul Missman - Original Message - From: "Mary K. Conner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 6:38 PM Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038 > At 10:01 PM 1/26/03 +, Gordon Spence wrote: > >4. Get it into perspective. The number of times this actually happens is > >miniscule. Out of the millions we have checked what are the "poached" > >items? Dozens, a few hundred?? > > Given that nobody poaches factoring assignments and the vast majority of > those were weeded out before entering public testing, I will exclude > factoring assignments. There have been 214,935 first time LL's and 184,754 > doublechecks completed. That's nowhere near "millions". I don't know the > history of every exponent, but there are patterns that definitely indicate > poaching (i.e when you look at exponents just below a milestone and observe > an exponent returned six times). There have been at least several thousand > exponents poached. One poacher I looked at had between half and two-thirds > of exponents he completed as triple checks. This was a "blind do the > leading edge without checking" poacher. Even when no milestone is looming, > I estimate there is an average of at least one poach every day, and these > are not "inadvertent poaches" where a previous assignee ends up completing > an exponent. These are known poaches by known poachers. The only time > poaching activity drops to "miniscule" is when the spotlight is thrown on > poaching by this list. > > >5. It has correctly been pointed out that life doesn't end if a milestone > >slips. Well guess what? That is a double-edged sword - life doesn't end if > >an exponent gets poached either. > > The fact that life doesn't end is not an excuse to poach. Poaching hurts > the project because it drives away participants. It is not harmless. I > don't know why people keep defending it. > > _ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm > Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers > > _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
At 10:01 PM 1/26/03 +, Gordon Spence wrote: 4. Get it into perspective. The number of times this actually happens is miniscule. Out of the millions we have checked what are the "poached" items? Dozens, a few hundred?? Given that nobody poaches factoring assignments and the vast majority of those were weeded out before entering public testing, I will exclude factoring assignments. There have been 214,935 first time LL's and 184,754 doublechecks completed. That's nowhere near "millions". I don't know the history of every exponent, but there are patterns that definitely indicate poaching (i.e when you look at exponents just below a milestone and observe an exponent returned six times). There have been at least several thousand exponents poached. One poacher I looked at had between half and two-thirds of exponents he completed as triple checks. This was a "blind do the leading edge without checking" poacher. Even when no milestone is looming, I estimate there is an average of at least one poach every day, and these are not "inadvertent poaches" where a previous assignee ends up completing an exponent. These are known poaches by known poachers. The only time poaching activity drops to "miniscule" is when the spotlight is thrown on poaching by this list. 5. It has correctly been pointed out that life doesn't end if a milestone slips. Well guess what? That is a double-edged sword - life doesn't end if an exponent gets poached either. The fact that life doesn't end is not an excuse to poach. Poaching hurts the project because it drives away participants. It is not harmless. I don't know why people keep defending it. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
Nathan Russell wrote: What if your prime had been lost to poaching? I think that's every participant's worst fear. Nathan Well, I would put global nuclear war and inoperable cancer as 1 and 2. Losing my precious exponent to poachers would rank as my third greatest fear. spike (Please, fellow math lovers, do let us get things in the proper perspective here. GIMPS is just for fun.) _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
--On Sunday, January 26, 2003 10:01 PM + Gordon Spence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 5. It has correctly been pointed out that life doesn't end if a milestone slips. Well guess what? That is a double-edged sword - life doesn't end if an exponent gets poached either. What if your prime had been lost to poaching? I think that's every participant's worst fear. I'm continiously nervous now on behalf of the 2 7.3M range double-checks (actually triple) that I have lined up to do. Nathan _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
You wrote: Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 21:41:54 -0500 From: "Richard Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1037 [snip] > > I think we all agree on how it's supposed to work So you agree that there should be no poaching of Primenet assignments - -- right? Or by "it", were you not including Primenet? Having read your entire post half a dozen times to try and workout exactly what point you were trying to make, I'll have a go at answering them. 1. Personally, I don't see any harm in "poaching" per se, I have had it happen to me. That's life and the way it goes. As I stated earlier, when information is discovered humanity as a whole gains. Period. Look at the big picture. 2. "It" does refer to the GIMPS project. [snip] > they are after all *just numbers*. Nobody owns them and So by "they" and "them" you _do_ mean just the numbers, without any consideration of GIMPS or Primenet - correct? 3. GIMPS or Primenet or whatever. For the umpteenth time. A number is a number. Period. Regardless of whether you or anybody else has checked it out or not. It may be (and is) officially discouraged, but as things stand, the "rules of the game" as we are playing them (ie the way the check-in system *actually* works) allows it to happen. 4. Get it into perspective. The number of times this actually happens is miniscule. Out of the millions we have checked what are the "poached" items? Dozens, a few hundred?? 5. It has correctly been pointed out that life doesn't end if a milestone slips. Well guess what? That is a double-edged sword - life doesn't end if an exponent gets poached either. > anyone in the world can work on whatever they want Well, sure. But that's irrelevant to my proposal. My proposal concerned the GIMPS/Primenet system, not the whole world. > without anyone's permission. Isn't there something in the current GIMPS/Primenet software along the lines of "if you use our software, you agree to abide by our rules"? 6. Now go back and read the license.txt file again, and this time actually take the time to read and understand it. It specifically excludes liability in the event of poaching. It does *NOT* say the you mustn't do it. The only rules that you agree to be bound by are those in deciding how the cash-prize is split up. It's actually more complicated, and it wasn't there in its present form when you used GIMPS software to discover that 2^2976221 - 1 is prime, but isn't that the gist of the current provision? 7. No, see item 6 above. [snip] >> > If I was setting out to "poach" numbers, then I would >> > simply setup a few 3.06 Ghz P4's and just start at the >> > bottom of the list (smallest exponents) and let rip. >> >> So, unlike many other poachers who've declared themselves >> and their motives on this list or in the GIMPS Forum, you >> wouldn't care whether any of those exponents were, say, >> only 2 days from completion by the Primenet assignee? Is >> that correct? You wouldn't take the trouble to distinguish >> between an assignment that has an estimated 2 days to >> completion and one that had 200 days to completion? 1) Do you care to give us a direct answer to any of the questions I posed in the above paragraph, so that we have a clearer idea of just what you were referring to when you used "that" in your next sentence? 8. If I were setting myself up to be a "serial poacher" as suggested above, then you are absolutely correct. A little bit of scripting to feed exponents into each cpu as it completed a work unit, then sit back and watch the trailing-edge of the project go rocketing forwards. 2) When you wrote "bottom of the list", were you referring to a list derived from a Primenet-generated report? 9. Either that or by manually generating such a list from several publicly available repositories of such information. Manual here of course means some scripting to do file manipulation, you could even do it dBASE3 if you felt like it. > If anyone wanted to systematically poach, then that is a > very simple approach. By "that", do you mean an approach that excludes checking whether any of the Primenet assignments were very close to completion? 10. Yes. [snip] Only the very, very few people who had the luck to choose, or to be assigned, to L-L test a Mersenne number that happened to be prime, along with a small number of others who were directly involved in the verification process, have had the very exclusive chance to demonstrate their discretion during the post-discovery verification phase. None of the other thousands of GIMPS participants have been given even a _chance_ to demonstrate that particular, very exclusive type of discretion. Can none of the latter category be trusted not to poach? 11. Life is all about luck, or being in the right place at the right time. Unfair? Perhaps, reality? Yes. My point is that there are a small number of people who we know for 100% certain can be trusted to act wi
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1036
At 04:27 PM 1/24/03 +, Gordon Spence wrote: Of course, as this is a *public* volunteer project, there are a lot of us, who have been in the project for a long-time (6+ years) who regularly look through these for no other reason than we *want* to. Aye, I like having as detailed an access as possible. All of these discussions about strategies couldn't be taking place unless we could see and analyze these trends and problems. No. If I was setting out to "poach" numbers - which in itself is a moot point. You don't *own* an exponent, they are after all simply numbers. However, I digress. If I was setting out to "poach" numbers, then I would simply setup a few 3.06 Ghz P4's and just start at the bottom of the list (smallest exponents) and let rip. Complete an exponent every day or so. So some of them might be completed before me, so what, we then have a "triple" check. If someone wants to do it, you won't stop them. While participants don't "own" exponents, there are rules for using Prime95, and participating using Primenet that one has to agree to in order to use them. The rules are explicit about agreeing to how credit is given and prizes awarded. It should be a rule that if one uses Prime95 or Primenet or any of its reports, that one does not use it or the information in the reports to target exponents assigned to others. If one wants the benefits that arise from this cooperative scheme, one needs to agree to participate in a cooperative manner. You are missing the point about it being useful to have "triple" checks. Nothing is redundant. There are plenty of triple checks that happen accidentally. There is no GIMPS need to do some on purpose, especially to the detriment of a participant that is following the rules. If someone feels a personal need to do triple checks, they should do them on exponents that are already double checked. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Poaching -- Discouragement thereof
I also have a proposal. This would need to be for the overhaul of Primenet. 1. When someone who has not held an assignment in the last year checks it in completed (in other words almost always a poacher), that submission is not acknowledged publically in any way. The exponent remains listed on the AER, no entry is made to the completed exponents page, the poacher receives no credit, and if the exponent expires before the original assignee finishes it (or is checked in with no progress made), the original assignee receives the public credit for it, and only the private database notes the poacher. There are a number of poachers who could care less about credit, but they do want to see those entries fall off the AER and milestones reached. If that didn't happen, and if it were impossible to even tell if another poacher had already poached an exponent, I believe these poachers would give up. It might not stop those who dash off an exponent just before it expires, but only if they don't care about credit. 2. The vast majority of "exponents out for a long time" happen because people who only have their computers on a very short time every day have exponents hang out in their queue for a very long time because Prime95 has a hard time dealing with estimating true times to completion when computers are on for short times or not turned on very often. If someone takes a year to complete an exponent, that's no big deal, but if they have five exponents in their queue (because Prime95 doesn't realize it will take five years to finish them all), it will be five years to finish the last. The best way to deal with that (even with the existing client base) is for Primenet to estimate the client's true progress and to take back those exponents that report no work done (IOW those that are in the queue behind the exponent that is being worked on) when they do check in (giving them an "exponent not assigned to this computer" error), and then give that client exponents on the leading edge when it asks for some to replace those errored out. That way when the year is up and that first exponent is completed, the next exponent that computer starts on will be one is much closer to the leading edge. 3. I like that Primenet should choose whether to give an expired exponent to a computer based on its history. However, I would like to suggest that the expiries that are the very closest to the trailing edge (perhaps the bottom 10%, if there are 4000 of that type outstanding, any expiries in the bottom 400 would fall in this criteria) should go to computers that not only pass Primenet requirements but whose owners have explicitly decided to ask for them. It should be an advanced checkoff or undoc option. It should be suggested to only use this option for computers that the GIMPSter has regular direct access to. 4. Primenet requirements for getting expiries in the bottom half of the active range should include using version XX.XX of Prime95, which has as a feature that it automatically sorts the worktodo list when rewriting it, placing the lowest exponents to be completed first. Exponents that have work in progress should sort to the top, and the sort should only be within work types. If one is working on factoring, and decides to switch to doublechecks, the doublechecks should not be popped above the factoring assignments or the factoring assignments will be a long time getting done (at least until Primenet perceives that a situation like 2 above is happening and reclaims the factoring assignments in the queue). 5. Version XX.XX of Prime95 and the overhaul of Primenet should support factoring limits and checkins of partial factoring progress. Right now if an exponent starts at 58 and needs to go to 66 bits, and someone factors through 65 and then expires that exponent, the new assignee has to start all over again at 58. The undoc factoring limits option should work with Primenet, and Primenet should preferentially give work over 64 bits to SSE2 clients, and perhaps direct others to factor only up to 64 bits unless there aren't enough SSE2 clients to handle the over 64 bit work (or if the owner of a machine asks for over 64 bit work). Okay, I'll stop. I keep thinking up things. :) _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: GIMPS Forum
On Sunday 26 January 2003 06:11, Rick Pali wrote: > [... snip ...] > that *everything* on the site is copyright by the owner. No exception is > made for the forums. They even go so far as do reject liability for what > people write, but seem to claim ownership non-the-less. IANAL but I don't think the combination of ownership & disclaimer would convince a court. If you claim you own the content then you become liable for legal action in the event that someone posts defamatory or illegal content, or breaches someone else's copyright by posting copyrighted material without proper consent. IASNAL but I think the correct thing to do on a forum - unless the contents are _strictly_ moderated _before_ being posted in public - is to have each individual author retain copyright of his/her contributions. It's then up to each contributor to take action for any breach of copyright if and when they see fit. Obviously the act of posting to a forum gives the forum operator the right to make the content available to the public. Regards Brian Beesley _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
